On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:50:05 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:36:36 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver.

No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to
as "multipath".


a.k.a, "fading".


The differences in phase angles of the received
signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the
fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter.


No it doesn't, and that's not what I said. I said that a non-linear
stage in the receiver can turn that fading into what appears to be
splatter. If you want an example I have a couple cheap shortwave
radios that do exactly that; you pay for shipping and you can examine
them all you want.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:33:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver.

No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to
as "multipath".


a.k.a, "fading".


The differences in phase angles of the received
signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the
fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter.


No it doesn't, and that's not what I said. I said that a non-linear
stage in the receiver can turn that fading into what appears to be
splatter. If you want an example I have a couple cheap shortwave
radios that do exactly that; you pay for shipping and you can examine
them all you want.


You may very well have an example of what you've described. But that
doesn't mean that I do, or that I am incapable of distinguishing
between receiver quirks and actual on-air splatter caused by an
illegal transmitter. In many cases, I've used different radios (I have
enough of them) as well as test equipment to make my determination.

Do you really want to argue the point just because you're smarting
with me right now? You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:21:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:33:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver.

No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to
as "multipath".


a.k.a, "fading".


The differences in phase angles of the received
signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the
fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter.


No it doesn't, and that's not what I said. I said that a non-linear
stage in the receiver can turn that fading into what appears to be
splatter. If you want an example I have a couple cheap shortwave
radios that do exactly that; you pay for shipping and you can examine
them all you want.


You may very well have an example of what you've described. But that
doesn't mean that I do, or that I am incapable of distinguishing
between receiver quirks and actual on-air splatter caused by an
illegal transmitter. In many cases, I've used different radios (I have
enough of them) as well as test equipment to make my determination.

Do you really want to argue the point just because you're smarting
with me right now? You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.


Well gee Dave, I'm just suggesting there's another possibility for the
splatter instead of illegal behavior. You know, kinda like your
suggestions that there were other reasons for voting irregularities in
Ohio. How can you be so 'open minded' on one topic yet be so quick to
condemn on another?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Dave Hall wrote:
You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Auuuuuuuddddiiiooo..auuuuuuudddddiiioooo.

click click g

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Auuuuuuuddddiiiooo..auuuuuuudddddiiioooo.

click click g

Careful, click click is considered amusement and
you microphone would then be illegal :P

Landshark

--
My bad..the camera is mightier than the blowhard(s)..in most respects.

"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Auuuuuuuddddiiiooo..auuuuuuudddddiiioooo.

click click g

Careful, click click is considered amusement and
you microphone would then be illegal :P

Landshark

Reckon a Browning ping with a roger beep is over-kill?